Professional Advertising, Inc. v. Intercontinental Capital Group, Inc.

In this action for an account stated, the motion court properly granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment based on the documentary evidence showing that defendant “ ‘received, retained without objection, and partially paid invoices without protest’ ” (see Scheichet & Davis, P.C. v Nohavicka, 93 AD3d 478 [1st Dept 2012]; Gamiel v Curtis & Reiss-Curtis, P.C., 60 AD3d 473 , 474 [1st Dept 2009], lv dismissed 13 NY3d 763 [2009]). Defendant’s challenges to the documentary evidence are without merit since they are “mere conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated” (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 , 562 [1980]; see Scheichet & Davis, P.C., 93 AD3d at 478 ). The motion court also properly dismissed defendant’s counterclaims, which are based on the same conclusory assertions. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Moskowitz and Clark, JJ.